2026:UHC:2827 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS IA 3/2026 (For Compounding Application) In WPCRL No. 1813 of 2025 With IA 2/2026 (For Compounding Application) In WPCRL No. 1830 of 2025 With IA 2/2026 (For Compromise Application) In WPCRL No. 1837 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Nandan Arya and Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. All these three petitions have been preferred by three petitioners namely Swaroop Singh Chauriya, Ravindra Kohli and Kishan Ram Arya for quashing of First Information Report dated 21.12.2025 bearing FIR No. 38 of 2025 P.S. Someshwar, District Almora, wherein, the petitioners have been implicated for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 5. Impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to an order passed on an application moved by the respondent-complainant under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. In all these petitions the interim protection was granted by the Coordinate Bench and now the separate compounding applications have been filed in each of the petition with this contention that infact the work in question has already been completed and the same is upto the mark and technical inspection was also carried out and, therefore, the impugned FIR be quashed. 6. The compounding application is supported with the affidavit of each of the petitioners and the complainant, who are present in court and are identified by their respective counsel. 7. It is also argued that all the offences are compoundable except the offence punishable 2026:UHC:2827 under section 467 and 468 of BNS, 2023, however, it is submitted that these offences can also be compounded with the leave of the court. 8. It is argued that all the petitioners herein are the public servant except one who retired from the post of Block Development Officer, the rest two are still serving as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari and other one is serving as an Assistant Social Welfare officer and their entire service are unblemished. The complainant, who was the Ex Pradhan of the village is also present in court and submits that he does not want to pursue with the impugned FIR since now the work has already been completed and the same is upto the mark. 9. Mr. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, have not disputed about the work completion and submits that since the FIR has been registered under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, and now the complainant himself does not want to pursue the impugned FIR which is under the investigation, therefore, there is no useful purpose to go with further investigation. 10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the complainant, who is present in court, is not intended to pursue with the impugned FIR since the work is already completed and upto the mark, this court is of the view that there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation, as such, the writ petition as well as the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions as well as the compounding applications are allowed. The impugned FIR dated 21.12.2025 bearing FIR No. 38 of 2025 is also hereby quashed qua the petitioners. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 18.04.2026 PR 2026:UHC:2827